> That's just what I intend to do. I don't see Std Haskell as a big
> deal, but even little deals are worth completing rather than
> leaving as loose ends... and I'm more optimistic than Paul about
> the usefulness of Std Haskell. I would be happy to find a name
> that was less grand and final-sounding than 'Standard Haskell' though;
> but more final sounding than 'Haskell 1.5'.
>
Let's drop the name Standard Haskell for now. I think Haskell 1.5 sounds
just fine, and is much truer to what's actually going on, given Haskell 2
on the horizon. The name doesn't even need to sound definitive. The point
is that *we* consider 1.5 a standard, and pledge to support it in our
implementations. The users of it aren't going to care what the name is, as
long as the textbook examples work ;-)
--Jeff
